***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 2 *****
How does cutting benefits to the unemployed and sick and elderly make those in employment better off?
have i missed the point ?
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 3 Apr 13 at 10:42
|
|
Who said it was supposed to?
|
making benefit recipeints poorer only makes those in work RELETIVELY better off, its all smoke and mirrors
|
the bloke is delusional...all people on benefits are wrong according to his own words
|
The theory is that it will influence the behaviour of those who find life on long term benefits preferable to work. By making benefit more conditional and cutting it's value in real terms(eg revisions to Council Tax and the 'Bedroom Tax') such people will be forced into work where they will be better off.
In fact of course the numbers in that category, whatever the hoo-ha got up by/for the media, are small. They also include a significant proportion of people with hidden health problems such as mental health which mean in practice they're unemployable. Meanwhile the real unemployed, seeking work as best they can, are hit just as hard as the so called shirkers.
Benefit claimants are however a useful Aunt Sally for a government that want's the squeezed middle to blame the poor for their misfortune. Meanwhile the super rich get their taxes cut and carry on increasing their share of the national pot as before.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 2 Apr 13 at 13:59
|
|
well put brompto... there still trying the divide and conquer tactic but i dont think its working
|
|
They definitely need to change any welfare system that enables some families to receive more in benefits for producing sprogs and sitting on their tracksuit clad 4rses than my national average salarly can cope with.
|
As much as I loath the vast expansion of benefits which are for some reason paid even to people who are quite well off in some cases, a recession is the wrong time to be trying to bump people into work when the jobs are not there. I have looked most weeks and there are very thin pickings for the low skilled.
As far as the rich go, they are the only ones who spend any real money in the service sector and I would personally rather a rich person paid me to wash their car as opposed to paying more tax to pay me to sit at home on benefits - a large number of small businesses rely on the patronage of the better off.
Im afraid the government really isnt that good at spending taxpayers money anyway, best they dont get their grubby hands on it at all.
|
Not sure that the 'rich spend' theory holds water Stu. Academic opinion is that while the less well off spend extra money on goods and services the better off save/invest.
The best way to stimulate the economy is to put money in the pockets of the working classes.
|
|
I understand that two thirds of the Cabinet are millionaires. These 18 ministers are about to get a tax cut amounting to £42k each!
|
>> I understand that two thirds of the Cabinet are millionaires. These 18 ministers are about
>> to get a tax cut amounting to £42k each!
>>
Well as most of the previous Government made themselves millionaires when in Government, I can't see the Labour Party complaining..
As are most of the LD Ministers.
Politics is the preserve of the rich.
Anyone naive enough to think otherwise votes UKIP and believes their leader is poor :-)
Or is a union member paying his dues to keep his union leaders on £100k plus pa.
Anyway, what's the fuss? Footballers may millionaires seem like paupers.
|
>>>Well as most of the previous Government made themselves millionaires when in Government, I can't see the Labour Party complaining..
I agree. Many from all parties seem to be able to line their pockets whilst in power.
Tony Blair seemed to do very well out of it.
|
Divide and rule isn't the sole perogative of the current unelected leader and his cohorts, it applies equally to the other two cheeks.
Whilst finger pointing and yah boo blame the baddie of the day is the order of the media it keeps the great unwashed from seeing and thinking too much, this also applied when the previous lot were in and will again when the brainwashed electorate put them back in in 2015.
Moving the figures about is fiddling while Rome burns, its going to take far more drastic action than a few headline grabbing cuts-which-arn't to even slow the STILL increasing national debt.
To put another slant on it i wonder how our people will react when when our govt of whichever hue dip their grubby mitts into private bank accounts (they have form with pensions) as they have done in Cyprus.
Be fine no doubt with one section of society so long as its the apparently idle rich who are soaked, nice wheeze pulled there by the way not dipping into lesser mortals accounts, not yet, large sighs of relief sound when it someone else footing the bill.
Maybe saved the possibility of serious civil disorder, wouldn't want eurostormtroopers to be seen beating the proletariat to a pulp just yet.
Last edited by: gordonbennet on Tue 2 Apr 13 at 14:56
|
>>Not sure that the 'rich spend' theory holds water Stu. Academic opinion is that while the less well off spend extra money on goods and services the better off save/invest.
The best way to stimulate the economy is to put money in the pockets of the working classes<<
The rich have far more disposable income than the poor. In 11 years doing my job I have never been booked by anyone who you would call working class. Many of my customers have gardeners, cleaners and all manner of specialist services visting and earning off of them.
The idea that the better off live in financial bunkers and dont spend much is an old fashioned caricature.
The guy who fitted the taps in my kitchen started his business in 2010 ( brave I know ), he is a general handyman type who learnt his trade as a live in handyman at a country estate - he now makes most of his money working for a handful of country estates, the sort of places that require ongoing work to function. I know alot of people who rely on such work, as do I - most of my customers are easily 45% tax rate payers. It isnt just that though as you tend to benefit from the networks of your customers who will often give your number out to other people who are equally flush with cash.
If you spend a day working at a country estate you start to get a sense of just how many people are employed to make the lives of the well off function.
|
A number of individuals have set up a petition for Iain Duncan Smith to try and live on £53/pw - roughly the amount of a single man's benefit after housing etc costs.
www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/iain-duncan-smith-iain-duncan-smith-to-live-on-53-a-week
IIRC Edwina Currie and Matthew Paris tried this in the past. Neither was wholly sucessful.
|
|
If my rent, and council tax was paid for, as most of the 53 quid a week examples are, I could probably do it. It wouldn't be pleasant, certainly not my current standard of living, but its not supposed to be, it supposed to allow you to survive - nothing more.
|
>> If my rent, and council tax was paid for, as most of the 53 quid
>> a week examples are, I could probably do it. It wouldn't be pleasant, certainly not
>> my current standard of living, but its not supposed to be, it supposed to allow
>> you to survive - nothing more.
>>
survive..survive.. blooming eck zeddo this aint 1940 ..we live in a country thats suppose to support those in hard ship
|
>>survive..survive.. blooming eck zeddo this aint 1940 ..we live in a country thats suppose to support those in hard ship <<
There are plenty of people in work who suffer hardship, why should those out of work be immune? This modern idea of hardship is a bit of a joke anyway.
|
|
so you agree people on benrfits are wrong uns?
|
>>so you agree people on benrfits are wrong uns?
There seems to be an increasing number of people who think that being poor is a sin!
I am not one of them.
|
>>so you agree people on benrfits are wrong uns?<<
No I dont, what a stupid thing to say. Benefits are given to moral and immoral people alike - you would do well to stop linking benefits to morality.
|
"A number of individuals have set up a petition for Iain Duncan Smith to try and live on £53/pw - roughly the amount of a single man's benefit after housing etc costs. "
The real question surely is can a fit single man find a job of any description in the UK. I would suggest that if anyone wants a job that pays more than £53 a week there are plenty available. If such jobs exist then there is no reason why the state (that's you and me) should be paying him £53 a week.
There are plenty of low skill jobs around here available from farm work to warehouse to catering if anyone wants them.
|
In the seventies, when I still drank draught bitter, used to drink in the Earl Percy in Ladbroke Grove, in the next block from our old gaff there. It was a period of strong leftiness with Trottish tendencies everywhere in the Labour Party.
One evening I remarked mildly to the pub's gaffer, a dead-hard Irishman quite a bit older than me, that some people were suffering hard times. He replied brusquely, and with withering scorn: 'There's no hard times.' I figured he knew more about hard times than I did.
|
So what benefits are actually being cut?
People will have their benefits capped at the national average wage - fair enough. The so called bedroom tax applies to people in social housing, fair enough if you have a home provided at below market rent that you have only the space you need when there are others who could do with more. Many home owners have to downsize when circumstances dictate.
And anyone who has to recruit and train people like I sometimes (unwillingly) get roped into will tell you there are scores of people who have no intention of getting off benefits, they are quite happy to sit on their backsides being kept rather than working for around 4x what they get off the state. Hardly a fortune, but not an excuse to continue sponging off everyone else.
|
RR,
Be careful about falling for the 'redistribution of space' argument when commenting on the so called bedroom tax.
If this was about re-allocating social housing more fairly it would not be limited to those of working age and claiming benefits. I suspect the biggest group of over occupiers are pensioners who are excluded from this exercise.
The objective is also out of kilter with the nation's housing stock. There are, outside sheltered accommodation, relatively few one or two bedroomed homes in social housing. Those moving out are therefore accommodated in private sector rentals at higher cost than before.
In most cases however people will struggle and either succeed or fail to find the balance, along with the contribution to Council Tax they now have to pay. It's simply a backdoor cut in disposable income for those on working age benefits.
|
>> I suspect the biggest group of over occupiers are pensioners who are excluded from this exercise.
'Over-occupiers'? Is that what people with a spare room or two are being called?
Waste space is one of life's great luxuries. The overcrowding suffered by the countless millions of the world's urban poor, and the consequent lack of privacy, have dire, lasting effects on human psychology.
Governments are obsessed with new-build minimal rabbit-hutch housing because it provides employment and more importantly, big profit to government-bribing big contractors. Much better to refurbish decent existing housing instead of demolishing it, nurturing better building and carpentry skills among the young and providing houses which at least have high ceilings. If people think this means 'gentrifying' everyone, well and good. Who but an idiot would choose to be working class if there was a choice?
|
zippy>>I understand that two thirds of the Cabinet are millionaires. These 18 ministers are about to get a tax cut amounting to £42k each!
Rubbish!! How exactly do you calculate that? I think you have thought that they EARN £1m annually, rather than just being *worth* more than £1m. I'd be surprised if more than a tiny handful of cabinet ministers will make tax savings through the cut in the tax rate above £150k.
Being a "millionaire" is almost inconsequential these days. It does not constitute any real level of wealth.
And yes, if your housing is paid for (and you don't need to pay to commute to work as you have no job) then £60 p.w. is more than enough for food for a fmily of four, let alone the single person who is envisaged by IDS.
|
"Being a "millionaire" is almost inconsequential these days. It does not constitute any real level of wealth."
A good deal of the population with their own house and a decent pension fund are effectively millionaires.
|
Meanwhile on Planet Tory...Today programme Radio 4 0740ish this morning. The odious Edwina Currie (ex MP - her of the eggs and John Major fame) She was defending the fact that Tory MPs were out of touch with the real world -- "MPs regularly attend Church Fetes, Women's Institutes and Boy Scout clubs...." If it hadn't been so disgracefully stupid it would have been comical...!
|
|
I listened to a bit of that RP and even with my conservative tendancies that woman does grate rather alot. Who on earth goes to church fetes anymore anyway, except Edwina of course. A steam rally on the otherhand... :-)
|
|
I really want to be a Conservative FoR - but they make it so very hard...
|
>>I really want to be a Conservative FoR - but they make it so very hard...<<
I nearly joined the party in 2010 but then I met some of the members! I think conservatism has alot to offer, but the Tory Party is a terribly conflicted way of delivering it and it often appears to be disappearing up its own backside with PR rather than having any ideological backbone.
|
>> I really want to be a Conservative FoR - but they make it so very
>> hard...
>>
Ok, so you are not a Conservative?
You are then, presumably a Socialist, a Communist, a Liberal, a whatever.
How does your Socialism, Communism, liberalism, or whateverism manifest itself?
|
I don't know - I've been a natural conservative for as long as I could vote. Got no answers Duncan - but I'll certainly not be voting Conservative next time around. I read somewhere at the weekend that they don't want to be in power after 2015 - if that is true they're doing too good a job turning people off.
I am a
1. Capitalist - I agree with the free market economy/
2. I believe in an united Europe as far as trade is concerned but not a Federal Europe.
3. I believe in strong Defence spending, I agreed with UK involvement in Afghanistan and not with Iraq, I agree with contracting SAR services to Bristow.
4. I think the NHS needs a radical overhaul - but not necessarily what the market led approach that NHS England is doing
5. I agree with Tuition Fees
6. Benefits do need to be sorted - there is too much dependancy on the welfare system - I agree with Universal Credit - I disagree with the way that ATOS have approached medical assessments, I don't agree with what they're doing to DLA. I think that HB needs to be capped but the way they've gone about it is ham-fisted. I agree with what they've done to CT
7. I disagree with the PCCs and the way that the Police Service has been systematically dis-assembled.
8. I used to agree with devolution but feel that the Labour party have wrecked it in Wales, I find myself almost attracted to Conservative Wales' approach.
9. I disagree with George Osborne over the handling of the economy.
10. I agree with gay marriage but the Churches shouldn't have it foisted upon them.
11. Education has been and is being mismanaged - at least the Tories tried to create alternatives.
12. I agree with the HMG's policy on immigration if they could get it to work, which they won't.
Labour has made a right mess of the country (like they always do when they're in power) - the Liberals are pointless....even in Wales Plaid Cymru are disconnected and disorganised and are fronted by a potty woman with views that should have been kept out of their politics if they had a brain.
I like my local MP - he's an honest man (Albert Owen - Labour) - but as they say on Anglesey he's got into power here because he's Albert not because he's Labour, an the Plaid runner is a twonk.
|
|
I share a lot of those opinions. Well said. :-)
|
|
You are natural Ukippers!
|
>> 5. I agree with Tuition Fees
I don't. I think the number of university places should be reduced by 60% instead.
>> 10. I agree with gay marriage but the Churches shouldn't have it foisted upon them.
The Church doesn't! In fact it continues to be illegal under the new law to be 'gay married' in Church.
|
>> Meanwhile on Planet Tory...Today programme Radio 4 0740ish this morning. The odious Edwina Currie (ex
>> MP - her of the eggs and John Major fame) She was defending the fact
>> that Tory MPs were out of touch with the real world -- "MPs regularly attend
>> Church Fetes, Women's Institutes and Boy Scout clubs...." If it hadn't been so disgracefully stupid
>> it would have been comical...!
ALL of those who attain high positions in politics, every party, are out of touch (or never been in touch) with the lower classes of the electorate.
|
|
That was a later part of the discussion - some interesting replies from there - funnily enough today I'd been to the Post Office in the town where I work - I was walking back into the car to see the local MP walking towards me - he acknowledged me and asked me about work and how busy we were after the benefits and Legal Aid changes - he's met me once only before in my workplace - not my MP but he seems a decent sort.
|
I have been deeply impressed by the recent allegation that 800,000 incapacity benefit claimants have withdrawn their claims on discovering that they might have to be backed up in some way. If true, it seems to confirm a lot of people's worst suspicions of 'benefit claimants' as a class or social group.
It occurs to me that it wouldn't take much creativity to justify incapacity benefit in my own case. After all, one's capacities are not what they once were. But my heart sinks at the thought of doing that. I loathe illiterate quasi-governmental forms with a great passion. And sitting in some dire non-smoking office for hours waiting to be interviewed by some ghastly person would make me feel terribly ill. And it would be immoral because I'm not poor. So I dursen't, sir. I just dursen't.
I get the absolute-minimum old age pension having neglected NI stamps in my long freelance career. I take it because it just comes and to be honest although not poor I am usually skint. I wouldn't take it if I had Lud's money.
|
>> I have been deeply impressed by the recent allegation that 800,000 incapacity benefit claimants have
>> withdrawn their claims on discovering that they might have to be backed up in some
>> way. If true, it seems to confirm a lot of people's worst suspicions of 'benefit
>> claimants' as a class or social group.
>>
>> It occurs to me that it wouldn't take much creativity to justify incapacity benefit in
>> my own case. After all, one's capacities are not what they once were. But my
>> heart sinks at the thought of doing that. I loathe illiterate quasi-governmental forms with a
>> great passion.
I recently completed one form for a relative with mental health issues.. I wrote exactly what she said - well I used the online version - so typed rather than wrote. Then I added my comments which sometimes disagreed with what she wrote.. I found it relatively easy as I am used to forms but if I was not would have found it very difficult.
We had a favourable outcome : she was not asked to go to interview and retained her benefit..Totally unsuited to work and would have been a disaster if forced to do so..
|
Most people paying tax do not resent paying benefits to people who are in genuine need.
What most people - except for apparently the Labour Party - object to is paying tax to fund benefits for people who are better off not working so decide not to do so.
What of course is reality is that we are NOT paying enough tax to fund our current Government spending and - as stated above - if the Government suddenly had to balance its books, it would have to find £100billion a year .
Now that is roughly 14% of tall Gov't spending:
Total Spending £715.3 billion
Pensions £144.6 billion
Health Care £130.2 billion
Education £99.3 billion
Defence £44.6 billion
Welfare £114.7 billion tinyurl.com/ychk4az
Easy to see the big numbers are the ones to cut. So far the NHS is not.
Make your own choices.
As far as "austerity" and "spending cuts" are concerned, the reality is :
major recessions take roughly a decade to sort out and reduce debt.
the US has not started to really try.. Some time it will have to.
When it does, everything so far will look like it really is: a picnic.
UK Gov't spending is NOT falling but rising
Anyone - but anyone - who thinks it's easy - and who thinks the Labour Party would do better - is seriously naive.. or Ed Milliband or Ed Balls... who are both clever men and know better.
Last edited by: madf on Tue 2 Apr 13 at 16:48
|
>> Anyone - but anyone - who thinks it's easy - and who thinks the Labour
>> Party would do better - is seriously naive.. or Ed Milliband or Ed Balls... who
>> are both clever men and know better.
No one is saying there's an easy way out but it's entirely possible for Labour to do better. Osborne is presently driving with one foot on a monetary accelerator (quantitative easing etc) while having the other on a fiscal brake (cutting investment etc).
|
>>
>> And yes, if your housing is paid for (and you don't need to pay to
>> commute to work as you have no job) then £60 p.w. is more than enough
>> for food for a fmily of four, let alone the single person who is envisaged
>> by IDS.
Even if £60 for food were true I seriously doubt it's possible to feed adults and teenagers for £15 each in a week. At least not properly and in the long term. Less so too if lack of a car cuts you off from the supermarket. Round here it's the village shop, nowadays focused mostly on convenience/distress purchases or 10% of your £60 on the bus fare to either Sainsbury or town (where the market is both better and cheaper)
And of course the £60 has to cover heating, water, clothing etc too.
|
>>Even if £60 for food were true I seriously doubt it's possible to feed adults and teenagers for £15 each in a week <<
If you really believe that then you are seriously out of touch. It is more than possible, I have done it every week for years. Too many years rolling around in piles of cash seem to have given you a taste for the high life :-)
|
>> And of course the £60 has to cover heating, water, clothing etc too.
>
You get fuel allowance, and you dont pay the water bill, as they are not allowed to cut you off.
It is easily possible to feed a family of 4 for 60 quid a week, however it requires menu planning, buying raw ingredients, preparing them and cooking it.
|
Its not so much the food costs as all the other associated costs which also need to come out that pot.
Gas, electricity already mentioned, what about everyones clothes, birthday presents, kids football club, daughters brownies etc?
Insurance, tv licence, paint for walls?
Try finding a job these days without internet and a computer? Do you think you will be successful if you don't have any telephone number to put on your application?
I am all in favour of making it worthwhile for people to work but those that aren't, why not get some work out of them? Litter picking etc?
|
|
CAB have a calculation on how this works Bobby. I'll dig it out.
|
>> CAB have a calculation on how this works Bobby. I'll dig it out.
I'd be interested in that too Rob. Twelve years ago when I worked in Mental Health I was one of the specialists in benefit - others did stuff like housing, motoring, MHRT etc.
I've not kept up with changes since 2002.
|
>> Its not so much the food costs as all the other associated costs which also
>> need to come out that pot.
>> Gas, electricity already mentioned, what about everyones clothes, birthday presents, kids football club, daughters brownies
>> etc?
>> Insurance, tv licence, paint for walls?
>> Try finding a job these days without internet and a computer? Do you think you
>> will be successful if you don't have any telephone number to put on your application?
The state should not be expected to pay for Birthday presents, football club, brownies, insurance, TV, DIY, or super fast broadband.
|
>> or horses.
Unless its in the form of cheap mince...
|
>> The state should not be expected to pay for Birthday presents, football club, brownies, insurance,
>> TV, DIY, or super fast broadband.
Trouble with that attitude is it adds social isolation to economic. No TV and the kids are on a limb straight away.
Insurance and broadband fast enough to support modest video are, I would suggest essential. The whole of Universal Credit is digital by default and so are many other govt services. You tube is increasingly used in govt for self help etc. DIY too in so far as it facilitates make do/mend.
There are probably, if you ask, legacies of the old UB40 type concessions in the Scout Movement and any decently organised community football club.
|
|
Under Welfare Reform Act all applications for Universal Credit will be online. This means that applicants must have access to the internet, so unless they have access they have to use public systems - or other agencies, who are losing funding, will have to help.
|
>>
>> >> The state should not be expected to pay for Birthday presents, football club, brownies,
>> insurance,
>> >> TV, DIY, or super fast broadband.
>>
>> Trouble with that attitude is it adds social isolation to economic. No TV and the
>> kids are on a limb straight away.
The idea is to get people OFF benefits ASAP. Social Isolation one way to do it, benefits are not there to supplement someones social life. The state can simply not afford it. not should they.
>> Insurance and broadband fast enough to support modest video are, I would suggest essential.
Not in the slightest bit essential. Streaming video is entertainment, there is nothing government advice wise on Youtube that is not available on paper. Ditto forms. You forget a whole generation of needy elderly don't have computers nor know how to use them. They get along just fine.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 2 Apr 13 at 18:23
|
>> UC is online only Zero.
and there are places to get on line, libraries, town halls. We dont have to provide 365 days a year internet access for one application do we.
Its madness that people think the state should pay for peoples internet access as part of benefits.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 2 Apr 13 at 18:33
|
|
Libraries are closing up here. Given me an aspect of my job though - part of my brief will be to help complete these in rural areas.
|
>> Libraries are closing up here. Given me an aspect of my job though - part
>> of my brief will be to help complete these in rural areas.
Not here, being run by community volunteers
|
You forget a whole
>> generation of needy elderly don't have computers nor know how to use them. They get
>> along just fine.
It is, however becoming ,more & more difficult. Just as an example, I have a modest pension from HSBC bank, from a short time spent working for Forward Trust, their then finance arm,
Up until this month I have received a monthly pay advice by post.
Now - this has been discontinued and the pay advices are ONLY visible on-line, using a user name and access code supplied by the bank.
For me that is no problem, but what of pensioners - many of whom have served in positions which never required financial or IT literacy and could well be of an age and situation where computers are completely foreign to their way of life?
|
>> You forget a whole
>> >> generation of needy elderly don't have computers nor know how to use them. They
>> get
>> >> along just fine.
>> It is, however becoming ,more & more difficult. Just as an example, I have a
>> modest pension from HSBC bank, from a short time spent working for Forward Trust, their
>> then finance arm,
>> Up until this month I have received a monthly pay advice by post.
>> Now - this has been discontinued and the pay advices are ONLY visible on-line, using
>> a user name and access code supplied by the bank.
I dont get a pay advice monthly for my pension, only if it changes. Why do you need a monthly slip of paper?
>> For me that is no problem, but what of pensioners - many of whom have
>> served in positions which never required financial or IT literacy and could well be of
>> an age and situation where computers are completely foreign to their way of life?
My mother survives just fine.
>>
|
So when the kids are islolated from their friends because they are all away having fun and getting exercise, you will complain that the kids are sitting in front of TV (if one can be afforded).
Yes, we could all live living off lentils, fresh air and using the internet at the library. But it still won't make any jobs appear that arent there. And before you all say there are loads of jobs on minimum wage, these will be the same jobs that the employers will fire you if you so much as fart in the wrong direction.
I simply cannot trust or believe millionaire politicians who tell the poor how to live their life. In days of old this is where Unions would come into their own but I don't trust them either.
Sad as it sounds, in today's society, its only when some famous celebs get onto a case that it gets any exposure.
On a side note, have heard that if you have a spare room, if you call it your prayer room instead............
|
>> I simply cannot trust or believe millionaire politicians who tell the poor how to live
>> their life.
As they are paying for the poor to live their life, surely they get some say into what they pay for.?
|
|
I know it's not what is meant but howclose does someone need to be make a decision on something they have little direct knowledge? Can millionaires only deal with high pay earners?
|
|
I have no doubt that IDC has no idea about what life on the poverty line means as much as he has no idea of how most people live their lives, but you also have to marvel at how the poverty level has been inflated by non essential items that the state can not afford not should be expected to pay for.
|
I know what you are saying - poverty during WW2 is different to perceived poverty now. But where do you draw the line?
Do we say get enough money to continue breathing or do we say get enough money to maybe actually get you out the hole that you are in?
Is having a phone number for a prospective employer to contact you a non essential item?
Is free transport to your nearest free internet facility essential?
|
I don't get a say on how the bankers live their life?
If it was a business, they would be slated for making decsions on the aspects of their business that they now nothing about. But while they can retreat to their various homes, and can claim more on expenses than many of us can earn, I don't think they are the right people to be making these decisions.
Assume they have consulted CABs, Poverty Groups, Welfare Groups, Shelter etc to have their input?
|
>> I don't get a say on how the bankers live their life?
Agreed that we should get say how bankers live their lives as we own their asses, but any other rich person? No they are not asking you to shell out of your wages to keep them alive.
>> If it was a business, they would be slated for making decsions on the aspects
>> of their business that they now nothing about.
They get sacked if they know nothing about their business.
>>But while they can retreat to their
>> various homes, and can claim more on expenses than many of us can earn, I
>> don't think they are the right people to be making these decisions.
so where does the money come from to pay the benefits. Me and you. And for me, I say i dont expect to pay for some little gits football practise or streaming blodink you tube.
|
>>so where does the money come from to pay the benefits. Me and you.
So why have the higher earners been given a reduction in their tax? More should be coming from them, more should be done about companies avoiding corporation tax, more should be done about bankers bonuses, more should be done about all tax avoidance schemes.
But no, that would then hurt their supporters, sponsors, donators and pals. And themselves.
|
Ah redistribution of wealth. take more money from those who input the most and give it to those who take the most.
|
So who is working harder - the brickie out in all weathers earning £300 per week or the guy with the rich parents who inherited their wealth and hasn't worked a day in his life?
Just because you have more money doesn't mean you have input the most.
|
>> So who is working harder - the brickie out in all weathers earning £300 per
>> week or the guy with the rich parents who inherited their wealth and hasn't worked
>> a day in his life?
And you reckon the hard working brickie is happy to pay for some layabouts sons footie practise? he has to pay tax too.
|
|
Well I remember some gov moves in that direction, they had meeting with Germans about tax havens in europe and got some money from there. There was quite a noise about bonuses I think they put a tax on them amoungst other things. Perhaps not enough for some but I don't think it's an area they've ignored (I note you didn't use thatword)
|
>>So why have the higher earners been given a reduction in their tax? More should be coming from them, <<
The top 10% of earners – those on at least £50,500 – paid 55.3pc of all income tax in 2012.
The idea that the rich dont put much in is absurd - without them you wouldnt have half of the things you have come to expect.
|
>>The idea that the rich dont put much in is absurd
Who is saying that?
Why should they need or want to reduce tax by 5% if you earn over £150k?
|
Be careful wishing to incessantly rob the rich to pay for the great social engineering experiment.
The rich as in France might decide to up sticks and clear off, that includes ex and current politicians currently getting the last few drops of blood out of drying stones.
The politics of envy doesn't lead anywhere productive.
|
>>Why should they need or want to reduce tax by 5% if you earn over £150k? <<
Most rational people want to reduce their tax bill.
Tax should be given willingly to fund the functions of the nation, but governments of all persuasions have for decades spent taxpayers money in wasteful and dubious ways, eroding the trust between taxpayer and state to the extent that we now have a cultural objection to giving more than is demanded by law.
|
>> Tax should be given willingly to fund the functions of the nation, but governments of
>> all persuasions have for decades spent taxpayers money in wasteful and dubious ways, eroding the
>> trust between taxpayer and state to the extent that we now have a cultural objection
>> to giving more than is demanded by law.
Give over. Tax was never given willingly except perhaps in support of wars of national survival.
Generally the rich evaded it while the poor had no choice but to pay up.
|
>
>> Generally the rich evaded it while the poor had no choice but to pay up.
Generally the rich don't pay it, the poor don't pay it, but those in the middle get squeezed till the pips squeak.
|
>> Generally the rich don't pay it, the poor don't pay it, but those in the
>> middle get squeezed till the pips squeak.
Same point, different perspective.
|
>>Give over. Tax was never given willingly except perhaps in support of wars of national survival. <<
Yes, when the people think it is being spent on a just cause they dont mind paying up.
In 2013 people are better informed about government activity and less trusting of the propaganda they put out.
>>Generally the rich evaded it while the poor had no choice but to pay up.<<
And now the poor dont pay income tax at all - cheer up.
|
>> daughters brownies
It's back to unhealthy eating again, isn't it. Eat well, save money.
|
>> Even if £60 for food were true I seriously doubt it's possible to feed adults
>> and teenagers for £15 each in a week. At least not properly and in the
>> long term.
What twaddle. It's an absolute doddle.
Breakfast is well under 10p per head in my house - in the winter anyway; porridge. If you're not paying for the gas in the cooker, and you've got time on your hand, you can spend your life making the most delicious casseroles and terrines. Then if you look at what poor people around the world eat, and buy large bags of: lentils, rice, cornmeal, then you can eat the most delicious dal, rice, polenta etc. Then stick to casseroling heart and cheek, or quick-frying kidneys. And my sourdough bread costs me 25p per loaf.
I reckon you eat much, much better on £1 per day than on £10 per day.
Oh yes, and Tescos Deliver to almost all of the UK.
I add that this campaign really annoys me, www.livebelowtheline.com/uk as it suggests that living on £1 per day is hardship; just look at their menu suggestions. It certainly takes brains (they're delicious too!!), but it's not hardship.
Last edited by: Mapmaker on Tue 2 Apr 13 at 17:49
|
>>And yes, if your housing is paid for (and you don't need to pay to commute to work as you have no job) then £60 p.w. is more than enough for food for a fmily of four, let alone the single person who is envisaged by IDS.
Food, plus gas, plus electricity, plus water, plus clothing. They are probably on a key system for power so it is likely an expensive tariff.
Last edited by: zippy on Tue 2 Apr 13 at 16:48
|
They are probably on a key system for power so it is likely an expensive tariff.
>>
Thats one of the reasons i'm with EBICO for my power supplies, their philosophy is one price for all regardless how you pay, i like that.
Always struck me as particularly cruel (and years of Labour govts have done nothing about this) that those on their uppers should be kicked even more whilst they are down by paying more for fuel than those like me lucky enough to be reasonably solvent.
|
People who oppose "spending cuts" ie Labourspeak for not increasing spending as much as they claim they would (public spending is never cut) never come up with their own solution as to how we solve the problem that we are spending some £350 million a day more than we are generating in tax income.
Other than the usual old bunch of hyenas screaming about bankers bonuses, although raising the tax on them would be no more than piddling in the ocean. I'm with Madf on this, we ain't seen nothing yet.
Last edited by: Robin Regal on Tue 2 Apr 13 at 18:00
|
|
I had a lefty friend who, in 2009, was whinging about where the money for rescuing the Banks was coming from and not being spent on stuff like benefits etc. etc. A very intelligent person sadly disconnected from the real world...
|
>> People who oppose "spending cuts" ie Labourspeak for not increasing spending as much as they
>> claim they would (public spending is never cut) never come up with their own solution
>> as to how we solve the problem that we are spending some £350 million a
>> day more than we are generating in tax income.
>>
>> Other than the usual old bunch of hyenas screaming about bankers bonuses, although raising the
>> tax on them would be no more than piddling in the ocean. I'm with Madf
>> on this, we ain't seen nothing yet.
The trick is to stimulate demand so as to increase the tax take. Ways of doing this include investment in social housing, road and rail. Stimulating the private sector to increase building on the land banks they already hold, if necessary by a properly targetted Development Land Tax.
There also needs to be an end to spin and a return to government prepared to tell citizens the truth including telling them they're wrong.
|
And to answer the rest of the questions, the Government’s benefits calculator reckons I could have £71 per week, plus council tax support. And I’m entitled to £188 per week for rent, which would just about get me a studio flat in my part of Town (and actually the landlord would probably put the rent up to that level and give me a tenner a week cashback).
Total annual income, £3,692. Let’s say £500 for gas and electric in a suitable-sized one-bed flat? And £200 for water? And £123 for internet and incoming calls, and put £100 towards computer depreciation. And £420 for my iphone plan. And say £85 for my Council Tax contribution. That leaves me a cool £2,434, which gives me £365 for my food bill, and then £2,069 for fun. I can take a week’s skiing holiday (£600 all-in for a low-season week), and I can take my tent to France for the month of August and potter around the north of France, hitching a bit and camping rough and drinking lots of nice French wine; so say £300. The remaining £1,000 would pay my annual sub at my club where my friends would stand me drinks as they’d feel sorry for me.
I’m well up for this!
|
>> The trick is to stimulate demand so as to increase the tax take. Ways of
>> doing this include investment in social housing, road and rail. Stimulating the private sector to
>> increase building on the land banks they already hold, if necessary by a properly targetted
>> Development Land Tax.
>>
>> There also needs to be an end to spin and a return to government prepared
>> to tell citizens the truth including telling them they're wrong.
>>
All extremely long term projects costing hundreds of billions without guaranteeing a worthwhile return. It is the private sector which will eventually pull us out of this recession and the way to stimulate it is to stop strangling it with tax burdens paying for a welfare system which has grown to a level we can't afford. Paternity leave is just one example of a ridiculous, un-necessary and unaffordable luxury we have to fund. Add Child Benefit and Tax Credits being paid to well above average earners, state pensions being handed out to millionaires and successive governments flooding the country with immigrants who will do jobs that many of the unemployed won't get out of bed for and you can see what an unholy mess the system has become.
Whatever you might think about this government, they are the only one in my memory who have grasped the nettle, even if only nervously and lightly.
|
>The trick is to stimulate demand so as to increase the tax take. Ways of doing this
>include investment in social housing, road and rail.
You forgot tractor-building Bromp.
And where is the money coming from.. more borrowing?
Wasn't it that Brown bloke who said that he would only borrow to invest? Remind me, what social housing, road and rail projects did he 'invest' in?
>There also needs to be an end to spin and a return to government prepared to tell
>citizens the truth including telling them they're wrong.
We've had enough of government and jumped up little bureaucrats telling us we're wrong. In fact we're sick of it.
Try again because I'm not buying it.
|
Is that right?
What about the utility bill of around £100 per month, water rates of around £30 per month?
There's almost £30 gone of your weekly amount already before you start on food.
Try it and see how you get on.
Pat
|
The major side effect of this new 'bedroom tax' is that the price of bedsits and one bed flats on the rental market may go through the roof. Could I live on £53 a week? Well it depends on benefits I get. But assuming rent is paid for by housing benefit then electricty would be at least £20 a week even if I was careful.
So that leaves me with £33 a week. I could do without a TV so forget that, I would need broadband and telephone that that is £20 a month. So that is now than so £28 a week.
I could buy all only raw food and valiue range products, it might be possible for myself to survive on £20 a week of food. The rest would go on clothes etc, from Primark.
However that means I have no money for any transport not even a bus pass. So yes I could live a miserable life for £53 a week, in freezing cold conditions etc and would stink like a tramp as I could not afford to wash.
If I was paying full rent where I live atm, I probably wouldn't actually have much more than £53 a week to live on anyway.
I don't know what the answer is though, there are clearly too many people not working living off the state, at the same time many of these people are genuine. How do you spot the genuine ones etc without taking up massive resources?
|
>>I don't know what the answer is though, there are clearly too many people not working living off the state, at the same time many of these people are genuine. How do you spot the genuine ones etc without taking up massive resources?
And therein lies the problem.
|
>>. The rest would go on clothes etc, from Primark<<
Clothes? I still wear clothes I wore as a teenager and sadly that was 14 years ago. Where do people get this rubbish that you NEED to spend much on clothes, it is totally false. Even my wife who does buy clothes does so in a charity shop where she buys items for no more than £2 a time.
>>electricty would be at least £20 a week even if I was careful.<<
Are you kidding? My last bill for electricity worked out at £6 a week. If you are paying £20 you need to switch supplier or stop lighting your home like Las Vegas.
Sorry but your sums just dont add up, you are inflating the cost of things way beyond reality.
|
|
Surely you mean all utilities for 20 a week? If you were careful in bedsit you'd be closer to that per month.
|
>> Surely you mean all utilities for 20 a week? If you were careful in bedsit
>> you'd be closer to that per month.
I suspect Rattle means all utlities. If I was a bedsit landlord I'd avoid gas. Too any uncertainties over safety with both installation and potential for accidents with drunk or daft occupiers.
I seriously doubt however that even a small bedsit would use only £5 a week at dual fuel metered rates and paying by DD never mind on a card. We were paying more than that in a 2 bed flat 30 years ago.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 2 Apr 13 at 20:26
|
|
I didn't say it would be 20 a month, but that it would be closer to that than 20 a week.
|
benefit changes - CGNorwich
